As is often the case, Steve Heimoff has posted a “think piece” on his blog today. And judging by the relatively few comments at the time I write this most readers are just doing that; thinking. His post is on authenticity in wine and how difficult and subjective it is to define. In the end, Steve gives no answers on the subject but does get one thinking about what makes a wine “authentic”.

To me authenticity starts with the intent of the winemaker and what the site and vineyard manager has provided her or him to work with. Can you make authentic Syrah in Napa Valley? Perhaps but other sites might be more suited to growing the grape. Should anything be added to the crushed grapes to make an “authentic wine”? Some would argue no, but denying scientific advances is similar to not using modern medicine to avoid fatal illness. The issue is loaded with traditional, cultural and political nuances.

Photo by stromnessdundee via Flickr

No discussion of wine authenticity should lack the obvious mention of low intervention or so-called “natural wine“. My own preference in my single quasi-commercial winemaking venture to date used as few processes as was possible in a shared winemaking facility like Crushpad in Dog Patch. Yes, yeast was inoculated as conducting a native yeast ferment, which was my preference, was not recommended within a winery with dozens, if not hundreds, of other fermentations taking place. Yes, enzymes and a minimal dose of sulfur were used on the must but after pressing only regular stirring of the lees was applied and the wine was only racked once after several months in barrel (it is a Roussanne/Marsanne blend).

Is this not a “natural, authentic” wine? Some would argue one or all of the three additives used makes this wine somehow makes it un-natural and less authentic. A few others might argue that trucking the grapes several hundred miles in a refrigerated container is also unauthentic but that’s another story.

My point is what is authentic wine is highly debatable. What is not is a sea of industrial wines sold that not only use modern science to produce clean wines but also techniques that make the resulting product softer and more approachable (think micro-oxygenation, mega-purple and other such processes or additives here). That doesn’t mean the wine is not better for all the manipulation but what is left is not an authentic representation of the site and grapes harvested that year.

But that’s just my opinion, and as Dennis Miller used to say, I could be wrong.

There was a good story in the Wall Street Journal recently about the rise of Muscat, the sweet white wine made all over the world but closely associated with Italy where it is called Moscato. Last year this grape took off growing nearly 80% in sales from the year before. Nobody in the wine business saw this coming and prices for Muscat grapes and wine have gone through the roof.

Have wine consumers switched from dry wines to sweet wines nearly overnight? Is this a sign of The Apocalypse?

Looking a bit deeper into the story there have been signs of consumer preference for sweeter wines. A decade ago tankers of Australian Shriaz with a slight addition of concentrate to add residual sugar weaned Americans off Coke and into wine. If you browse your local wine store or supermarket you will also notice more “sweet red” blends on the shelf than ever. And I’ve seen a rise in sweet Riesling lately as well.

One ray of light in Lettie Teague’s article is that, “The biggest audience for Moscato is the ‘Millennial’ generation between 21 and 30 years of age,” according to research from Gallo. Further, these new young consumers, “found their own way,” and were not converted by any marketing push for the grape. As I wrote earlier in the week, my wine journey started with Muscat when I was in my early 20’s. Once wine became a part of my life I wanted to learn more which led to other grapes like Gewürztraminer and Riesling. Eventually not all of these wines were sweet and I got into Chardonnay, and later, Zinfandel and Cabernet Sauvignon.

I think Millennial consumers are just getting started with wine and will move past this sweet Muscat phase in a year or two. Until then we will see sweeter wines continue to grow as wineries jump on this trend. The sky isn’t falling; the wine market is expanding and for the first time the Millennial Generation is showing its impact.

I’m a traditionalist but also a realist. And I think now is the time to shake up the centuries old wine labeling and classification systems that have stood as a barrier to selling many Old World wines to American consumers. Case in point is Germany where a tradition of bad Middle Ages typography continues on some wines even today making them nearly unreadable to many. Combine that with the complexity of their labeling and classification system and you have a recipe for developing only a cult following. I’m sure even a lot of Germans don’t get it and they speak the language.

So I was heartened that progress is being made on this front by a recent post at British wine industry journal, The Drinks Business. The short piece pointed to a proposal in Germany’s Rheingau region where producers are adopting a Burgundian classification system and simplified labels. While it makes sense to label many of the regions’ fine Rieslings for the place and vineyard, I don’t think this goes far enough, at least as it applies to export markets. Varietal composition, level of sweetness and other information should also be clearly marked somewhere on the packaging. And there should also be room for interactive elements such as those now being introduced with QR codes. Only then will Old World wines have the transparency necessary to develop a following outside of the wine geek circle.

The Connoisseurs’ Guide to California Wine has long been a resource for consumers looking to find great wines from my native state. Founded in 1974, the publication was among the first I purchased when I first got into wine almost 30 years ago. My old green CGCW guidebook has long since been replaced by other wine pubs and I haven’t thought about the Connoisseurs’ Guide for a decade or more. So I was surprised last night as I read a post entitled, “Wine Blogging: Can It Survive?” on their blog, no less. This post was inspired by an earlier musing by Steve Heimoff.

After thinking about both posts for a bit, I wonder why most times wine bloggers are referenced by the wine writing establishment the issue of making money comes up? Most likely because they themselves would not do what they have been doing for free and are mystified why we choose to spend time blogging with little or no monetary reward. The irony, of course, is these same wine writers are using the blogging medium to syndicate their somewhat disparaging views about wine bloggers.

If you look at the wine blogging scene today there are hundreds of entrants chasing the attention of a niche audience who have both a passion for wine and the tech savvy to know what a blog is. The top wine blogs, according to the alawine.com listing, are mixed between pros like New York Times wine writer Eric Asimov, wine blog pioneers like Vinography, New York Cork Report and Tom Wark’s Fermentation. The only “new entrant” is 1WineDude who has been around for 4 years. But for the hundreds – or even thousands – of voices in the wine blogosphere there are really only 25 or 30 who have built online communities of any size.

So that brings me back to monetization. Even the very top trafficked independent wine blogs don’t produce enough clicks to make online advertising a viable source of income. Sure, they could make a few bucks here and there but the volume is just not large enough for anything significant. For the rest of us, the income might cover the server costs and some of our travel expenses but that’s about it. For some, just the access to the wine industry is enough with event passes and wine samples a nice perk. For others, such as the folks at Catavino and myself, outside consulting opportunities in the wine industry help pay the bills. But the vast majority of wine bloggers make little to nothing from blogging. And I don’t see anything wrong with that.

News that wine critic Robert Parker had handed over the reviewing of the wines of Burgundy and California to colleague Antonio Galloni barely made it out of the eRobertParker.com gated community last week. In fact, as I write this post only Alder at Vinography and Mike Steinberger has blogged this story. And it is a story that will be among the most debated in the wine world for the better part of the next decade as Mr. Parker slowly retires presumably one wine region at a time.

So what comes after Parker?

I’ve commended on the future of wine writing before. And this will most likely not be the last time I write about where we are going but one thing is clear to me. There will never be a single critic with as much power as Robert Parker.

Before Parker the wine writing world was dominated by British writers but there were noted American writers such as Robert Lawrence Balzer and Robert Finigan. What set Parker apart from others at the time he started was brilliance and luck. His brilliant adaptation of the American school grading system to rate wine on the 100 point scale is his most lasting achievement. And he was just plain lucky to call the monumental 1982 Bordeaux vintage which put him on the map and continues to bolster his reputation as a wine critic of vision and skill.

And that brings me back to the post-Parker period of wine criticism. First, I think Mr. Parker will remain a force in the wine world for a long time. His gradual lightening of his workload will continue with perhaps coverage of the Rhône going to someone else next. He will keep Bordeaux and older California wine coverage right until he hangs it up, which I would guess would be around the time he turns 70 in 2017. So we have a ways to go before his retirement which will provide time for a gradual transition to new voices.

Who will be those new wine writers?

This is where it gets hard to predict. Yes, one or more wine bloggers will emerge and take over some of the slots in the existing wine pubs as others retire or move on but I don’t think the future of wine writing is dominated by bloggers. But I do think the future is digital and always connected so wine blog content is a piece of it. And I also think there will be hundreds of influential wine writers in the future and not just a handful of professionals that we see today.

How all these voices are aggregated into something that reaches the wine buying consumer is another story. And one we shall see played out over the next six years.

Update 2: Eric Asimov blogs a detailed and reasoned response to the story at the New York Times’ Diners Journal which concludes, “The time for one overwhelmingly dominant critical voice in wine is well past, and the weekend’s announcements simply reinforced that truth.”

I also noted that this story was broken over the weekend by Jeff Leve at the Wine Cellar Insider blog. I was not following this blog so I didn’t see his post as I composed this one Sunday evening.

Update 3: Jeff Lefevere at Good Grape presents a different point of view in his recent post. Money quote: “In my opinion, Parker’s announcement is less about “semi-retirement” and California and more about where he can wield the biggest influence – carry the biggest stick— in the latter stages of his career.”

Update 4: Joe Roberts at 1WineDude has the last word in his post: “…don’t look for deep meaning in Parker’s decision to reassign CA reviews at The Wine Advocate: it is what it is, and probably according to Parker would always have ended up this way no matter what he or anyone else did.”

Archives

Archives

About Me

Tim Elliott is a marketer, blogger and podcaster based in the Twin Cities. He founded Winecast in 2004 to share his passion for wine online. Tim has also written for Minneapolis City Pages, Vineyard & Winery Management Magazine and Honest Cooking.